logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1113 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 4849 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Parties : Kancharlla Siva Narayana Reddy Alias Siva Reddy Alias Babu & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Kishore Kumar Katari, Advocate. For the Respondent: Surepalli Madhava Rao, Advocate, Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 01-07-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code & 528 of BNSS - Section 437/438/439/482 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High CourtPleased to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.54 of 2026 of Kadapa-I Town UPS Police Station, YSR Kadapa District and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased)

1. The instant criminal petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.54 of 2026 of Kadapa I Town UPS Police Station, YSR Kadapa District.

2. In terms of the direction of this Court dated 19.06.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner taken out notice on the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant and filed proof of service.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. No representation for the 2nd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner though raised several grounds, however, confined to the extent of granting benefit of Section 35 (3) BNSS in the instant case, by stating that the respondents police are going beyond the procedure established under Law and they may apply third degree method against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that undisputedly, the offences attributed against the petitioner in FIR are punishable below seven years.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, since the above said offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this criminal petition with a direction to the respondent police to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) BNSS and also the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. ((2026) SCC OnLine SC 162), without any retraction.

8. In the event of any violation found subsequently, it would be view seriously in view of the above well settled legal principles.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

10. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal